Are we back to the mccanns having to prove their innocence and not being entitled to the presumption of innocence
No, it's not about that. It's about whether the public prosecutors declared them innocent, as they and their supporters claim or whether they didn't, as the SC judges ruled.
Article 277/1 says;
The Public Ministry shall, by dispatch, close the investigation, as soon as it has gathered sufficient evidence that the crime was not confirmed,
that the arguido did not practice it in any way or that the procedure is legally inadmissible
Yipee! That does indeed suggest that they were cleared. The contents of the document say quite clearly, however, that they were not. That's why the SC judges said the case should have been archived ubder 277/2;
The investigation shall also be closed if it had not been possible for the Public Ministry to obtain sufficient evidence confirming the crime or who were the authors.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Annulment_request.htm277/2 fits what the prosecutors actually said;
While it is an unavoidable fact that Madeleine disappeared from Apartment 5A of the 'Ocean Club', the manner and circumstances under which this happened are not - despite the numerous diligences made in that sense -, therefore
the range of crimes that were indicated and referred to during the inquiry remains untouched.http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htmThat means they didn't identify the crime. If they couldn't identify the crime they could hardly say who did or didn't commit it. That would be saying "We don't know what happened to Madeleine but we know her parents didn't do it" That makes no sense.
'